-
PloS One 2018During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the results of these reviews suggested that digoxin seems to increase the risk of all-cause mortality regardless of concomitant heart failure. Our objective was to assess the benefits and harms of digoxin for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter based on randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, BIOSIS for eligible trials comparing digoxin versus placebo, no intervention, or other medical interventions in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in October 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were heart failure, stroke, heart rate control, and conversion to sinus rhythm. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and chose the more conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.
RESULTS
28 trials (n = 2223 participants) were included. All were at high risk of bias and reported only short-term follow-up. When digoxin was compared with all control interventions in one analysis, we found no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.82; TSA-adjusted confidence interval (CI), 0.02 to 31.2; I2 = 0%); serious adverse events (RR, 1.65; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.24 to 11.5; I2 = 0%); quality of life; heart failure (RR, 1.05; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 1141.8; I2 = 51%); and stroke (RR, 2.27; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 7887.3; I2 = 17%). Our analyses on acute heart rate control (within 6 hours of treatment onset) showed firm evidence of digoxin being superior compared with placebo (mean difference (MD), -12.0 beats per minute (bpm); TSA-adjusted CI, -17.2 to -6.76; I2 = 0%) and inferior compared with beta blockers (MD, 20.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, 14.2 to 27.2; I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses on acute heart rate control showed that digoxin was inferior compared with both calcium antagonists (MD, 21.0 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -30.3 to 72.3) and with amiodarone (MD, 14.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -0.58 to 30.0; I2 = 42%), but in both comparisons TSAs showed that we lacked information. Meta-analysis on acute conversion to sinus rhythm showed that digoxin compared with amiodarone reduced the probability of converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm, but TSA showed that we lacked information (RR, 0.54; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.13 to 2.21; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical effects of digoxin on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, heart failure, and stroke are unclear based on current evidence. Digoxin seems to be superior compared with placebo in reducing the heart rate, but inferior compared with beta blockers. The long-term effect of digoxin is unclear, as no trials reported long-term follow-up. More trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors assessing the clinical effects of digoxin are needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016052935.
Topics: Aged; Amiodarone; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Bias; Calcium Channel Blockers; Comorbidity; Digoxin; Female; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mortality; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29518134
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193924 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) constitute the standard therapy for both primary and secondary prevention; however, they are not widely available in settings with limited resources. The antiarrhythmic amiodarone has been proposed as an alternative to ICD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of amiodarone for primary or secondary prevention in SCD compared with placebo or no intervention or any other antiarrhythmic drugs in participants at high risk (primary prevention) or who have recovered from a cardiac arrest or a syncope due to Ventricular Tachycardia/Ventricular Fibrillation, or VT/VF (secondary prevention).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and LILACS on 26 March 2015. We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies, screened relevant meetings and searched in registers for ongoing trials. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy of amiodarone versus placebo, no intervention, or other antiarrhythmics in adults. For primary prevention we considered participants at high risk for SCD. For secondary prevention we considered participants recovered from cardiac arrest or syncope due to ventricular arrhythmias.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies included more than one comparison.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies (9,997 participants). Seventeen studies evaluated amiodarone for primary prevention and six for secondary prevention. Only three studies used an ICD concomitantly with amiodarone for the comparison (all of them for secondary prevention).For primary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (17 studies, 8383 participants) reduced SCD (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). The quality of the evidence was low.Compared to other antiarrhythmics (three studies, 540 participants), amiodarone reduced SCD (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), cardiac mortality (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76). The quality of the evidence was moderate.For secondary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (two studies, 440 participants) appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 4.32; 95% CI 0.87 to 21.49) and all-cause mortality (RR 3.05; 1.33 to 7.01). However, the quality of the evidence was very low. Compared to other antiarrhythmics (four studies, 839 participants) amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 1.40; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.52; very low quality of evidence), but there was no effect in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; low quality evidence).Amiodarone was associated with an increase in pulmonary and thyroid adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low to moderate quality evidence that amiodarone reduces SCD, cardiac and all-cause mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention for primary prevention, and its effects are superior to other antiarrhythmics.It is uncertain if amiodarone reduces or increases SCD and mortality for secondary prevention because the quality of the evidence was very low.
Topics: Adult; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Cause of Death; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Humans; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 26646017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008093.pub2 -
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine Mar 2018To exam the effect and safety of conventional acupuncture (CA) on cardiac arrhythmia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To exam the effect and safety of conventional acupuncture (CA) on cardiac arrhythmia.
METHODS
Nine medical databases were searched until February 2016 for randomized controlled trials. Heterogeneity was measured by Cochran Q test. Meta-analysis was conducted if I was less than 85% and the characteristics of included trials were similar.
RESULTS
Nine qualified studies involving 638 patients were included. Only 1 study had definitely low risk of bias, while 7 trials were rated as unclear and 1 as high. Meta-analysis of CA alone did not have a significant benefit on response rate compared to amiodarone in patients with atrial fibrillation (Af) and atrial flutter (AF) [relative risk (RR): 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.49; P=0.61; I=61%, P=0.11]. However, 1 study with higher methodological quality detected a lower recurrence rate of Af in CA alone as compared with sham acupuncture plus no treatment, and benefits on ventricular rate and time of conversion to normal sinus rhythm were found in CA alone group by 1 study, as well as the response rate in CA plus deslanoside group by another study. Meta-analysis of CA plus anti-arrhythmia drug (AAD) was associated with a significant benefit on the response rate when compared with AAD alone in ventricular premature beat (VPB) patients (RR, 1.19, 95% CI: 1.05-1.34; P=0.005; I=13%, P=0.32), and an improvement in quality-of-life score (QOLS) of VPB also showed in 1 individual study. Besides, a lower heart rate was detected in the CA alone group by 1 individual study when compared with no treatment in sinus tachycardia patients (MD-21.84 [-27.21,-16.47]) and lower adverse events of CA alone were reported than amiodarone.
CONCLUSIONS
CA may be a useful and safe alternative or additive approach to AADs for cardiac arrhythmia, especially in VPB and Af patients, which mainly based on a pooled estimate and result from 1 study with higher methodological quality. However, we could not reach a robust conclusion due to low quality of overall evidence.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Premature Complexes
PubMed: 28432528
DOI: 10.1007/s11655-017-2753-9 -
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy Aug 2023Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are excreted by P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and some are metabolized by CYP450 enzymes such as CYP3A4. Although fewer drug... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Using P-gp and/or CYP450-Interacting Drugs: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are excreted by P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and some are metabolized by CYP450 enzymes such as CYP3A4. Although fewer drug interactions are present with NOACs, it is unclear whether NOACs should also be preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using pharmacokinetically interacting drugs. Therefore, the benefit-risk profile of NOACs versus VKAs was investigated in AF patients treated with P-gp and/or CYP450-interacting drugs.
METHODS
Using PubMed and Embase, randomized controlled trials and observational studies on the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus VKAs in AF patients using P-gp and/or CYP450-interacting drugs were included. A meta-analysis was performed, calculating relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with the Mantel-Haenszel method.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included, investigating 10,793 NOAC and 10,096 VKA users treated with P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors, whereas no studies on P-gp and/or CYP450-inducing drugs were identified. Compared to VKAs, NOACs were associated with a borderline non-significantly lower stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) risk (RR 0.85, 95%CI (0.72-1.01)), significantly lower intracranial bleeding (RR 0.47, 95%CI (0.34-0.65)) and all-cause mortality risks (RR 0.87, 95%CI (0.79-0.95), but significantly higher gastrointestinal bleeding risk (RR 1.74, 95%CI (1.06-2.86)). Among AF patients using amiodarone, NOACs were associated with significantly lower stroke/SE (RR 0.71, 95%CI (0.54-0.93)) and intracranial bleeding risks (RR 0.51, 95%CI (0.29-0.88)), but significantly higher gastrointestinal bleeding risk (RR 2.15, 95%CI (1.24-3.72)) than VKAs.
CONCLUSION
The benefit-risk profile of NOACs compared to VKAs was preserved in AF patients using P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors, including amiodarone.
Topics: Humans; Warfarin; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Member 1; Administration, Oral; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors; Stroke; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Embolism; Amiodarone
PubMed: 34637052
DOI: 10.1007/s10557-021-07279-8 -
Heart Rhythm Jul 2016Treatment strategies to prevent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) include antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation for the prevention of recurrent ventricular tachycardia in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Treatment strategies to prevent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) include antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and catheter ablation (CA).
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to systematically compare the efficacy of AADs and CA for the prevention of VT in patients with ICDs.
METHODS
Major databases were searched (October 2015) for randomized trials evaluating AADs or CA vs standard medical therapy to prevent VT in ICD patients. Primary outcome was the number of VT episodes leading to appropriate ICD interventions.
RESULTS
Eight trials (n = 2268, follow-up 15 ± 6 months) evaluated AADs, and 6 trials (n = 427, follow-up 14 ± 8 months) evaluated CA. A significant reduction in appropriate ICD interventions was found with both CA (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.71, P = .001) and AADs (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.97, P = .037), with no significant difference between the 2 treatment strategies. The benefit of AADs was driven by amiodarone and not confirmed with other AADs. A reduction of inappropriate ICD interventions was found with AADs (OR 0.30, P = .001) but not with CA. Both CA and AADs were not associated with decreased mortality over follow-up. Amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of death (OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.36-8.30, P = .009).
CONCLUSION
In patients with an ICD, both AADs (amiodarone) and CA reduce the risk of recurrent VT compared to control medical therapy, with no significant difference between the 2 treatments. AADs are also associated with a reduction of inappropriate ICD therapies. The significant reduction of recurrent VT episodes does not appear to result in a mortality benefit, with a potential for increased mortality with amiodarone.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Catheter Ablation; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Defibrillators, Implantable; Electric Countershock; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Tachycardia, Ventricular
PubMed: 26961297
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.03.004 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery; it is associated with morbidity and mortality. We undertook this review... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery; it is associated with morbidity and mortality. We undertook this review to compare the effects of rhythm vs. rate control in this population.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to March 2023. We included randomized trials and observational studies comparing rhythm to rate control in cardiac surgery patients with POAF. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyze data and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.
RESULTS
From 8,110 citations, we identified 8 randomized trials (990 patients). Drug regimens used for rhythm control included amiodarone in four trials, other class III anti-arrhythmics in one trial, class I anti-arrhythmics in four trials and either a class I or III anti-arrhythmic in one trial. Rhythm control compared to rate control did not result in a significant difference in length of stay (mean difference -0.8 days; 95% CI -3.0 to +1.4, I = 97%), AF recurrence within 1 week (130 events; risk ratio [RR] 1.1; 95%CI 0.6-1.9, I = 54%), AF recurrence up to 1 month (37 events; RR 0.9; 95%CI 0.5-1.8, I = 0%), AF recurrence up to 3 months (10 events; RR 1.0; 95%CI 0.3-3.4, I = 0%) or mortality (25 events; RR 1.6; 95%CI 0.7-3.5, I = 0%). Effect measures from seven observational studies (1428 patients) did not differ appreciably from those in randomized trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Although atrial fibrillation is common after cardiac surgery, limited low-quality data guide its management. Limited available evidence suggests no clear advantage to either rhythm or rate control. A large-scale randomized trial is needed to inform this important clinical question.
PubMed: 37445569
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134534 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology Jul 2020Vernakalant is a novel, relatively atrial-selective antiarrhythmic agent. Despite its good efficacy profile and rapid onset of action, there was still controversial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Vernakalant is a novel, relatively atrial-selective antiarrhythmic agent. Despite its good efficacy profile and rapid onset of action, there was still controversial evidence regarding vernakalant-related adverse events. We searched PubMed and Embase for studies that compared intravenous vernakalant with placebo or antiarrhythmic agents in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) lasting no more than 7 days. Efficacy and safety outcomes were the treatment-induced cardioversion rate within 90 minutes and adverse events after first exposure to study drug respectively. Nine randomized controlled trials enrolling 1296 patients were analyzed. Quantitative synthesis showed that vernakalant was superior to placebo for cardioversion of recent-onset AF within 90 minutes [49.7% vs. 6.2%, risk ratio (RR) 8.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.35-12.36, P < 0.00001], and it did not achieve statistical significance in cardioversion when vernakalant was compared with ibutilide (62.4% vs. 47.3%, RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.73, P = 0.05). As for safety assessment, no significant differences were found in occurring serious adverse events (9.9% vs. 10.4%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67-1.25, P = 0.57) and hypotension (5.3% vs. 3.3%, RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.86-2.73, P = 0.15) between vernakalant and comparator (either placebo, ibutilide, or amiodarone). There were trends that patients receiving vernakalant experienced more drug discontinuation (2.5% vs. 1.0%, RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.96-5.11, P = 0.06) and less any ventricular tachycardia (6.1% vs. 8.1%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-1.00, P = 0.05) than those receiving comparator, but the differences were not statistically significant. Furthermore, vernakalant was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia in comparison with comparator (6.3% vs. 1.1%, RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.67-9.75, P = 0.002). Vernakalant is effective in converting recent-onset AF to sinus rhythm rapidly, while significantly more bradycardia events are related to vernakalant in our meta-analysis.
Topics: Anisoles; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Bradycardia; Heart Rate; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32251022
DOI: 10.1097/FJC.0000000000000832 -
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Aug 2023Amiodarone is a class III antiarrhythmic drug used to prevent supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. It has substantial toxicity; however, the use of...
BACKGROUND
Amiodarone is a class III antiarrhythmic drug used to prevent supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. It has substantial toxicity; however, the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) seems unclear in the absence of a therapeutic range or an association between amiodarone blood concentration and effect. In this review, the authors examined the reported amiodarone blood concentration measurements in the last 10 years and subsequently noted the frequency by which TDM was used to optimize therapy.
METHODS
In March 2022, the Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched for articles published in English in the previous 10 years using the keywords "amiodarone," "therapeutic drug monitoring," or "serum/plasma/blood".
RESULTS
This study included 19 of the 478 articles identified. TDM has not been studied in conjunction with regular amiodarone maintenance therapy. One study used TDM during the initial treatment phase but the amiodarone dose was not changed. In 3 other case reports, TDM was used to guide amiodarone treatment through drug-drug interactions, and plasma levels of the active metabolite mono-N-desethyl-amiodarone (MDEA) verified 2 amiodarone toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS
Because the antiarrhythmic effect of amiodarone is not correlated with blood concentrations and is easily detectable by electrocardiogram, the routine use of TDM in maintenance therapy is controversial, as evidenced by a scarcity of published literature in the recent decade. Furthermore, amiodarone toxicity is evident with normal/low amiodarone or MDEA levels; hence, TDM of amiodarone provides no therapeutic benefit to patients.
Topics: Humans; Amiodarone; Drug Monitoring; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
PubMed: 36631415
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000001079 -
European Journal of Internal Medicine Sep 2022Bradycardia, renal failure, atrioventricular (AV) nodal blockade, shock, and hyperkalemia (BRASH) syndrome is a recently-established entity precipitated by...
BACKGROUND
Bradycardia, renal failure, atrioventricular (AV) nodal blockade, shock, and hyperkalemia (BRASH) syndrome is a recently-established entity precipitated by medication-induced AV nodal blockade. Despite its serious consequences, including death, clinical presentations, risk factors, and outcomes of the syndrome have not been well defined. We aim to summarize the existing evidence of BRASH syndrome.
METHODS
According to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, we performed a search on MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles with keywords including"BRASH syndrome" and "bradycardia, renal failure, atrioventricular nodal blockade, shock, and hyperkalemia," from the inception of these databases to March 4, 2022.
RESULTS
34 articles, including one observational study, 15 conference abstracts, and 18 case reports and case series, were included. While most patients were on beta blockers (83.3%) or calcium channel blockers (45.2%), other medications such as amiodarone were identified as precipitating agents. Atropine or glucagon were ineffective in reversing patients' symptoms, and 59.5% required inotropes or chronotropes. 7.1% expired due to BRASH syndrome.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review summarizes the clinical characteristics of BRASH syndrome. Further studies to identify risks associated with the onset of BRASH syndrome and awareness of the critical syndrome are warranted.
Topics: Atrioventricular Block; Bradycardia; Humans; Hyperkalemia; Observational Studies as Topic; Renal Insufficiency; Shock; Syndrome
PubMed: 35676108
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.06.002 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022To evaluate the efficiency of amiodarone in preventing the occurrence of reperfusion ventricular fibrillation (RVF) after aortic cross-clamp (ACC) release in patients...
Effectiveness of Amiodarone in Preventing the Occurrence of Reperfusion Ventricular Fibrillation After the Release of Aortic Cross-Clamp in Open-Heart Surgery Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficiency of amiodarone in preventing the occurrence of reperfusion ventricular fibrillation (RVF) after aortic cross-clamp (ACC) release in patients undergoing open-heart surgery.
METHODS
We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed databases through January 2021 for relevant studies addressing the efficacy of amiodarone in preventing RVF after ACC release in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A complete statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to express the results of dichotomous outcomes using random or fixed-effect models. The chi-square test and test were used to calculate heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Seven studies (856 enrolled patients; 311 in the amiodarone group, 268 in the lidocaine group, and 277 in the placebo group) were selected for the meta-analysis. The incidence of RVF was significantly decreased in the amiodarone group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.50-0.94, = 0.02). However, amiodarone and lidocaine did not confer any significant difference (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.61-1.59, = 0.94). The percentage of patients requiring electric defibrillation counter shocks (DCSs) did not confer any significant difference between patients administered amiodarone and lidocaine or placebo (RR = 1.58, 95%CI: 0.29-8.74, = 0.60; RR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.27-1.10, = 0.09; respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Amiodarone is more effective than a placebo in preventing RVF after ACC release in cardiac surgery. However, the amiodarone group required the same number of electrical DCSs to terminate RVF as the lidocaine or placebo groups.
PubMed: 35187132
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.821938